Home  /  Recent Bills  /  A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".
SENATE · SJRES 18 119 CONGRESS

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".

INTRODUCED
February 13, 2025
POLICY AREA
STATUS
Became Public Law No: 119-10.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗
This is a joint resolution, not an ordinary bill

A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Bill vs. resolution, explained →

Summary

This joint resolution, S.J.Res.18 from the 119th Congress, disapproves a final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) concerning overdraft lending practices for very large financial institutions. The rule in question, published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 106768), addresses overdraft lending by setting limits on fees, requiring clearer disclosures, and imposing other regulatory constraints on banks with over $10 billion in assets. By invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), this resolution seeks to nullify the CFPB's rule entirely, meaning it would have no legal force or effect if enacted. The CRA allows Congress to overturn recently finalized federal regulations by a simple majority vote in both chambers, followed by presidential signature. Since this is a joint resolution disapproving a rule (not proposing a constitutional amendment), it follows the standard legislative path: passage by both the House and Senate, then presentation to the President for approval or veto. If signed, the CFPB's overdraft lending rule would be vacated, reverting to the previous regulatory landscape for overdraft fees and practices at major banks. Proponents argue this prevents overreach by the CFPB and protects consumer access to credit, while opponents contend it removes vital consumer protections against predatory fees and undermines the agency's authority to regulate financial products. The resolution reflects broader partisan debates over financial regulation, the role of the CFPB, and the balance between consumer protection and industry flexibility in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Would maintain the CFPB's rule designed to curb excessive overdraft fees that burden consumers living paycheck to paycheck.
+Supports greater transparency in overdraft lending practices, helping consumers make informed financial decisions.
+Protects vulnerable populations from predatory fees that can exacerbate financial instability and debt traps.
+Reinforces the CFPB's mission to ensure fair, transparent, and competitive financial markets as established by the Dodd-Frank Act.
+Encourages banks to adopt more equitable pricing models and reduce reliance on fee income from vulnerable customers.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Increases compliance costs for large banks, which could potentially be passed on to consumers through higher account maintenance fees or reduced services.
−May limit the availability of overdraft protection for consumers who occasionally need short-term liquidity and lack alternative credit options.
−Represents Congressional interference with an independent agency's expertise in consumer financial protection.
−Could create regulatory uncertainty if the rule is vacated after banks have already begun implementing changes.
−Diverts attention from broader financial reform efforts needed to address inequality and access to banking services.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Reduces regulatory burden on large financial institutions, promoting operational efficiency and competitiveness.
+Preserves access to overdraft services for consumers who rely on short-term liquidity, particularly those with limited banking alternatives.
+Checks perceived overreach by the CFPB, reinforcing Congressional authority over federal regulations via the CRA.
+Avoids potential increased costs for banks that could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees or reduced services.
+Aligns with Republican priorities of limiting government intervention in the financial sector and supporting market-based solutions.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May allow banks to continue charging high overdraft fees that disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable consumers.
−Undermines efforts to increase transparency and fairness in banking practices, potentially enabling abusive lending tactics.
−Could weaken the CFPB's ability to protect consumers from harmful financial products, reducing accountability in the industry.
−May lead to regulatory instability if Congress frequently uses the CRA to overturn rules, creating uncertainty for businesses.
−Fails to address systemic issues in overdraft lending that contribute to debt cycles among financially marginalized populations.

History

May 09, 2025
Became Public Law No: 119-10.
May 09, 2025
Became Public Law No: 119-10.
May 09, 2025
May 09, 2025
Signed by President.
May 05, 2025
Presented to President.
May 05, 2025
Presented to President.
Apr 09, 2025
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 217 - 211 (Roll no. 96). (text: CR H1519)
Apr 09, 2025
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 217 - 211 (Roll no. 96). (text: CR H1519: 1)
Apr 09, 2025
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1533)
Apr 09, 2025
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on S.J. Res. 18, the Chair put the question on passage of the joint resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hill (AR) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
Apr 09, 2025
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Apr 09, 2025
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on S.J. Res. 18.
Apr 09, 2025
Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526 and H.R. 22. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.
Apr 09, 2025
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 294. (consideration: CR H1519-1525)
Apr 07, 2025
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 294 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526 and H.R. 22. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.
Apr 01, 2025
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 282 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution also provides that H. Res. 23 and H. Res. 164 are laid on the table.
Mar 31, 2025
Mar 31, 2025
Received in the House.
Mar 31, 2025
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
SPONSOR
RELATED BILLS